Economy

With the framework for changes that the Treasury secretary, Timothy F. Geithner, will outline on Wednesday, Mr. Obama will enter an election-year debate with Republicans in Congress and in the presidential race who seek even lower taxes for businesses. But an overhaul of the corporate code is unlikely this year, given that political backdrop and the complexity of an undertaking that would generate a lobbying frenzy as businesses vie to defend old tax breaks or win new ones.

Ironically, the perceived hostility towards gun owners by President Obama has actually helped the firearms industry tremendously. Since the 2008 election, more Americans than ever before are purchasing firearms & ammunition. This has meant massive increases in sales by firearm & ammunition makers, billions more in federal and state tax collections related to guns & ammo, increased membership in the NRA, and hundreds of thousands of new Americans carrying concealed handguns. Therefore, should the firearms industry support President Obama for a second term or not?

Throughout the crisis, the European Union’s favored strategy has been to provide tightly controlled financial support to highly indebted countries, in the hope of buying them enough time to put in place policies aimed at cutting budget deficits. While such moves can deepen recessions, the goal is to eventually lower debt levels and win back the confidence of the bond markets.

Their deaths came on a day in which, according to activists, more than 80 people were killed in the besieged district of Baba Amr in Homs, which has been under daily attack by the Syrian army for three weeks.

The French president, Nicolas Sarkozy, called the journalists' deaths an assassination and said the Assad era had to end.

Energy

“The communities targeted for drilling need the power to determine for themselves when, where and if fracking is permitted,” Katherine Nadeau, the water and natural resources program director for Environmental Advocates of New York, said in a statement. She said the ruling would energize “the dozens, if not hundreds, of cities and towns concerned with industrial gas drilling.”

The floating Kamisu wind farm just off the coast of the Ibaraki prefecture comprises of just seven 2 megawatt wind turbines, but was able to withstand the tsunami and provided vital electricity in the wake of the disaster.

The price of gas is going even higher even though energy consumption is sharply declining in the United States. Just check out the charts in this article by Charles Hugh Smith. Americans are using less gasoline and less energy and yet the price of gas continues to go up.

It is no surprise that import bills go up when oil prices increase. It is more surprising that GDP often goes up too. Figure 1 depicts the correlation between oil prices and GDP for 144 countries from 1970 to 2010. More precisely, it shows the cyclical components of oil prices and GDP, with long-term trends excluded. The set includes 19 oil-exporting countries, represented by red bars, and 125 oil-importing countries, represented by blue bars. A positive correlation indicates that when oil prices go up, GDP goes up, and when oil prices go down, GDP goes down.

Environment

The contamination level of Mizumoto Park turned out to be the same level of “off-limits zone” in Chernobyl. The contamination level of the park was 23,300 Bq/Kg. According to Nuclear Safety Commission, it is converted to be 1.4 ~1.5 million Bq/m2.

In Chernobyl, if the area is more contaminated than 1.48 million Bq/m2, it was labeled as off-limits zone, which was the worst level of the pollution. Because cesium doesn’t choose Mizumoto park intentionally, at least some parts are contaminated as the worst area of Chernobyl.

Article suggestions for the Daily Digest can be sent to dd@PeakProsperity.com. All suggestions are filtered by the Daily Digest team and preference is given to those that are in alignment with the message of the Crash Course and the "3 Es."

Join the discussion

84 Comments

As far as citizens having to face the military we call all pray and hope it never comes to that. But just look around the world at how many places it has occured just in the last couple of years? History is littered with examples. I surely hope communities and countries can pull together to work on peaceful solutions to the many troubles we face, but hope is a poor substitute for preparedness.

Fact is, there are a lot of guns in the US and there is no doubt that a lot of people die of gun related causes. Also, no matter how much fevered imaginations think they might be able to defend themselves against a rogue gov't, they don't stand a chance if the military chooses to take the gov't side. And, I wouldn't bet against that possibility.

If we were completely without guns in the US, and we were given a choice whether to create a gun culture or not, it is completely reasonable to choose to have no guns. But, that isn't our choice. Our choice is whether we want to have our own guns in a nation saturated with guns or not. We don't have the option of the country going gunless without a lot of bloodshed. That's who we are, like it or not.

Mike,
Anyone can quote statistics to support their position. Gun-rights supporters do it just as well (actually better) than you do. I am not going to Google the whole of the gun-rights statistics battle just to refute the ones you picked out. People will always support that which they have already made up their minds about.

But it is also poor logic to simply infer that because A and B exist together therefore A causes B.

Determining causation is never that simple. I do not deny that the United States has a high crime rate. But the US, one of "the world's richest nations" as you say, is also far higher in societal inequality, sickness, and poverty than most rich countries, and those make even better indicators of crime in any country, rich or poor, gun control or no gun control. Murders don't occur simply because only certain tools for it happen to be at hand. They happen for other reasons: desperation, anger, a sense of injustice, contempt, fear. And throwing accidental deaths into the mix is hardly pertinent to this conversation.

As for your other sentiments, I find those to be appalling:

"it's the fact that by definition, 50% of the population has an IQ of 100 or less that worries me. I don't doubt we have very smart gun owners in THIS community..... but I would be very concerned about the fact that "the tool" might be in the hands of "the mindless"..."

This is incredibly elitist and arrogant of you. You seriously believe that half the population is too stupid to be trusted, so you feel it's better for the government to control them by taking away the scissors? You believe that the vast unwashed masses are incapable of acting in a their own best interest, so you would propose to do it for them? Nice vision of Transition you have there.

Again, why bother with laws at all - just lock everyone up in padded rooms "just in case." You simply have demonstrated yourself to be a one-percenter without the money to make you dangerous.

Fact is, there are a lot of guns in the US and there is no doubt that a lot of people die of gun related causes. Also, no matter how much fevered imaginations think they might be able to defend themselves against a rogue gov't, they don't stand a chance if the military chooses to take the gov't side. And, I wouldn't bet against that possibility.

In organized head-to-head combat, I'd agree with you. But only fools would choose to oppose powerful tyrants in that manner. Considering the history of guerilla or unconventional warfare, I'd strongly disagree with you. It wouldn't be easy but the oppressors would eventually die a death of a thousand cuts. And it's unlikely that the entire military would all turn against its all mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, relatives, and friends en masse. There would be internal as well as external resistance. Throughout history, NO oppressive power has EVER stood against its repressed populace for an indefinite period. The history of oppressors is the same as the history of fiat currencies. They will fall. No house can stand against itself.

Fact is, there are a lot of guns in the US and there is no doubt that a lot of people die of gun related causes. Also, no matter how much fevered imaginations think they might be able to defend themselves against a rogue gov't, they don't stand a chance if the military chooses to take the gov't side. And, I wouldn't bet against that possibility.

In organized head-to-head combat, I'd agree with you. But only fools would choose to oppose powerful tyrants in that manner. Considering the history of guerilla or unconventional warfare, I'd strongly disagree with you. It wouldn't be easy but the oppressors would eventually die a death of a thousand cuts. And it's unlikely that the entire military would all turn against its all mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, relatives, and friends en masse. There would be internal as well as external resistance. Throughout history, NO oppressive power has EVER stood against its repressed populace for an indefinite period. The history of oppressors is the same as the history of fiat currencies. They will fall. No house can stand against itself.

To assume that Americans would engage in a meaningful guerilla opposition is hugely presumptive in my opinion. I don't think most Americans view themselves as oppressed and I'm not at all sure how many Americans have the steel in their spines, the endurance and the tolerance for large losses necessary to sustain a long-term guerilla movement. (Any guerilla movement has to be resilient enough to keep fighting over many years) We are not the Viet Cong.

Fact is, there are a lot of guns in the US and there is no doubt that a lot of people die of gun related causes. Also, no matter how much fevered imaginations think they might be able to defend themselves against a rogue gov't, they don't stand a chance if the military chooses to take the gov't side. And, I wouldn't bet against that possibility.

In organized head-to-head combat, I'd agree with you. But only fools would choose to oppose powerful tyrants in that manner. Considering the history of guerilla or unconventional warfare, I'd strongly disagree with you. It wouldn't be easy but the oppressors would eventually die a death of a thousand cuts. And it's unlikely that the entire military would all turn against its all mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, relatives, and friends en masse. There would be internal as well as external resistance. Throughout history, NO oppressive power has EVER stood against its repressed populace for an indefinite period. The history of oppressors is the same as the history of fiat currencies. They will fall. No house can stand against itself.

To assume that Americans would engage in a meaningful guerilla opposition is hugely presumptive in my opinion. I don't think most Americans view themselves as oppressed and I'm not at all sure how many Americans have the steel in their spines, the endurance and the tolerance for large losses necessary to sustain a long-term guerilla movement. (Any guerilla movement has to be resilient enough to keep fighting over many years) We are not the Viet Cong.

Actually, to assume that they wouldn't is even more presumptive, in my opinion, especially given our past history and the nature of people who would leave their native lands to come here in the first place. By and large, this isn't a nation of the timid. The oppression hasn't yet reached a point to produce that reaction though. The Viet Minh (predecessors of the Viet Cong) were easily overcome by the Japanese in all out war. The Japanese were tough as nails. And we overcame them in mano-a-mano fighting. The only reason the Viet Cong survived is because the Vietnam War was never fought to be won. It was fought to generate profits. When the Viet Cong were essentially devastated after the Tet Offensive, the follow-up coup de grace was never put in place. That wasn't by accident.

"it's the fact that by definition, 50% of the population has an IQ of 100 or less that worries me. I don't doubt we have very smart gun owners in THIS community..... but I would be very concerned about the fact that "the tool" might be in the hands of "the mindless"..."

This is incredibly elitist and arrogant of you. You seriously believe that half the population is too stupid to be trusted, so you feel it's better for the government to control them by taking away the scissors? You believe that the vast unwashed masses are incapable of acting in a their own best interest, so you would propose to do it for them? Nice vision of Transition you have there.

OK, the fact that 50% of the population has an IQ of 100 or less IS fact. Whether you like it or not. It isn't elitism. Some members of my own family (not my kids..) belong to that group.

I was lucky to be born with an IQ of 132, which I believe allows me to think critically. It does worry me that people with IQ's of, say, less than 90, vote and reproduce, and yes, own guns...... in fact I believe now that one of the reason we are now in such deep doodoos is BECAUSE there are so many people with insufficient IQ's to make intelligent decisions. Worse, the real elites (which absolutely excludes me..) take advantage of this. The 1% take advantage of the 50% to screw the 49%. I know it's a simplistic explanation, but it is why I have largely given up on humanity, and it is why I don't believe anything can be done to avoid collapse......

I realise that government control is considered un-American, and believe me, this sort of thinking is almost exclusively American, not even Australian conservatives feel so anti-government..... in fact it was one of our most conservative Prime Minister, John Howard, who introduced gun control in Australia after our one and only gun related massacre in Tasmania some twenty years ago.

Whether I'm arrogant or not is not for me to decide, I might be biased.... but where I see the most arrogance is in the US, a country that believes it has a God given right to rule the world with an army bigger than all the armies of the rest of the world put together.

Actually, to assume that they wouldn't is even more presumptive, in my opinion, especially given our past history and the nature of people who would leave their native lands to come here in the first place. By and large, this isn't a nation of the timid. The oppression hasn't yet reached a point to produce that reaction though. The Viet Minh (predecessors of the Viet Cong) were easily overcome by the Japanese in all out war. The Japanese were tough as nails. And we overcame them in mano-a-mano fighting. The only reason the Viet Cong survived is because the Vietnam War was never fought to be won. It was fought to generate profits. When the Viet Cong were essentially devastated after the Tet Offensive, the follow-up coup de grace was never put in place. That wasn't by accident.

Quote:

By and large, this isn't a nation of the timid.

How do you know? Our mettle as a nation hasn't really been tested in 65 years. A lot has changed.

Quote:

And we overcame them in mano-a-mano fighting.

No we didn't. We defeated them the same way we defeated the Nazis. We were the industrial giant of the world and we simply outproduced them in war machinery. This in no way minimizes what the people actually involved in the fighting did, but you have to remember Russia lost 20 million people in that war and our industrial might supplied the allies and was not diminished because we didn't fight on our own soil.

Bottom line, we aren't a nation of John Waynes. We are largely an aging population with no experience in combat. We are domesticated and I question whether we could put up much of a defense against a competent military force.

Bottom line, we aren't a nation of John Waynes. We are largely an aging population with no experience in combat. We are domesticated and I question whether we could put up much of a defense against a competent military force.

Doug

Doug - there is no other country in the world that has the ability to power project. No large scale amphibious capability, no milirary sealift, no large scale heavy lift aircraft logistics support. It is highly unlikely the US will ever have to put up a defense on our own soil.

I was lucky to be born with an IQ of 132, which I believe allows me to think critically. It does worry me that people with IQ's of, say, less than 90, vote and reproduce, and yes, own guns...... in fact I believe now that one of the reason we are now in such deep doodoos is BECAUSE there are so many people with insufficient IQ's to make intelligent decisions. Worse, the real elites (which absolutely excludes me..) take advantage of this. The 1% take advantage of the 50% to screw the 49%. I know it's a simplistic explanation, but it is why I have largely given up on humanity, and it is why I don't believe anything can be done to avoid collapse......

I realise that government control is considered un-American, and believe me, this sort of thinking is almost exclusively American, not even Australian conservatives feel so anti-government..... in fact it was one of our most conservative Prime Minister, John Howard, who introduced gun control in Australia after our one and only gun related massacre in Tasmania some twenty years ago.

Whether I'm arrogant or not is not for me to decide, I might be biased.... but where I see the most arrogance is in the US, a country that believes it has a God given right to rule the world with an army bigger than all the armies of the rest of the world put together.

Mike

Mike - you really don't believe that you need a high IQ to make intelligent decisions do you? Some of the stupidest people I have run across have measured IQs over 150. Go to a MENSA meeting sometime and you will see a wonderful collection of socially retarded individuals. Give me the guy with an IQ of 90 who understands you can't spend more than you make and he or she would be a brilliant candidate for Treasury or FED President.

And there you go with your facts thingie again. The Chinese and the North Koreans each have a larger standing army than the US.

Bottom line, we aren't a nation of John Waynes. We are largely an aging population with no experience in combat. We are domesticated and I question whether we could put up much of a defense against a competent military force.

Doug

Doug - there is no other country in the world that has the ability to power project. No large scale amphibious capability, no milirary sealift, no large scale heavy lift aircraft logistics support. It is highly unlikely the US will ever have to put up a defense on our own soil.

I doubt Doug meant defense against outside powers, rather the US populace vs the US military...

Mike - you really don't believe that you need a high IQ to make intelligent decisions do you? Some of the stupidest people I have run across have measured IQs over 150. Go to a MENSA meeting sometime and you will see a wonderful collection of socially retarded individuals. Give me the guy with an IQ of 90 who understands you can't spend more than you make and he or she would be a brilliant candidate for Treasury or FED President.

I'm no way smart enough to go to a MENSA meeting........!

Give me the guy with an IQ of 90 who understands you can't spend more than you make, and I'll be really surprised..... Thing is, IMO, not so smart people are easily influenced, by things like advertising. They're the ones (though there are exceptions of course) who smoke, lay around watching TV (great source of propaganda), and don't believe a word I say about the three E's....... We call them "Bogans" in Australia! Some of them are my brothers and sisters.

I don't socialise with bogans, and I have to say every time I meet one, I'm still shocked.

[Religion] I know I'll get into strife over bringing religion up, but [religion]. I'll bet there are even politicians in your country who pretend to be believers just so that they get the religious votes....

I see you mentioned going to church, and none of this is meant to offend you..... I just don't understand it. So you see, not even a moderately high IQ can beat some prejudices........ I've just given up on the majority of humanity.

Well you can think that but you'd be wrong. If you were aware of the accounts of many of the land battles in the Pacific, they were slugfests. Read about Wake Island. The Japanese had all the war machine advantages. Although the island was eventually taken by the Japanese, the Americans there made them pay a terrible toll through sheer grit and determination. Read about Guadalcanal, Tarawa, Peleliu., etc. Here're just a few stories for your edification.

I see you mentioned going to church, and none of this is meant to offend you..... I just don't understand it. So you see, not even a moderately high IQ can beat some prejudices........ I've just given up on the majority of humanity.

Anyway, I've got some shelving to build.

Mike

MIke - No offense taken....on the contrary, while we may debate a myriad of topics, you and I probably see eye to eye on more things than we have differing opinions on. As to religion and my faith.....? Heck, if I understood it, I'd explain it to you. Since I can't, I won't. I can only speak in glittering generalities - and you will NEVER see me in a debate over one's choice of religion/faith/spirituality (or not).

Shoot, if I could get you to come to America, once we got past the "Shootout at the OK Corral" at the airport, run the gauntlet of pistol packing grandmas playing Mah Jong in the park and dodge the running gunfights on the highway, there is a wonderful brewery not too far from us up in the Shenandoah Mountains with growlers......yes growlers, of 10 point IPA.

I don't know about you but I've never let myself become soft. And I know a lot of others like me.

Yes but people like us are rare ao...... most people these days ARE soft, and unfit and overweight, and they smoke, and drink too much, and often can't even cook for themselves.

The Japanese were defeated with hand to hand combat (and flamethrowers...), but there was little of that in 'Nam...

Mike

Completely different wars with completely different goals. The American soldier in Vietnam was "different" too. The elite units fared well. The basic Army grunt, however, did not. He was poorly trained for jungle combat. He came quickly into country (via jet rather than slow boat during which he could have psychologically prepared and established rapport with his fellows in arms), often alone (rather than with the unit he trained with), was brought into a unit socially isolated (as the f'in new guy), and left the same way. His basic weapon, the M-16, was often unreliable and designed more to wound than to kill. He was often ordered to take objectives only to give them back the next day. His effectiveness was measured by body counts rather than territory taken and the bodies disappeared as the VC or NVA dragged away their dead and wounded. He couldn't tell friend from foe. There was little esprit d corp or unit cohesion. The experienced non-coms were killed off or rotated back stateside and they were a lot of dumbass, inexperienced ROTC second lieutenants (otherwise known as future frag candidates). The war was unpopular at home and he was treated like crap when he left and when he returned. He faced racial strife among the ranks as well. As a group, Vietnam vets were one of the youngest, least experienced, and most poorly educated groups of American soldiers. Contrast their educational background to all the Ivy League US Marines in WW 1 at the Battle of Belleau Wood, for example. In short, it was a cluster f*** for him, because of how it was handled from the top. The poor grunt hardly had a chance. It's a wonder he did as well as he did. Plus, the biased left wing media presented him as a drug addled, baby killer, and never, EVER, showed the incidents that demonstrated his courage and heroism such as:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_D._Miller

It was a damn crying shame, started by a false flag imaginary attack, with rules of engagement hamstringing every action, enriching David Rockefeller and LBJ's Texas contingent among others, and knowingly ... KNOWINGLY leaving a good number of men over there to rot and die for purely political reasons.

I was lucky to be born with an IQ of 132, which I believe allows me to think critically. It does worry me that people with IQ's of, say, less than 90, vote and reproduce, and yes, own guns...... in fact I believe now that one of the reason we are now in such deep doodoos is BECAUSE there are so many people with insufficient IQ's to make intelligent decisions.

Wow! I'm just so impressed! I would much rather have someone with common sense, modesty, humbleness, and the willingness to learn and work with others than someone who can do well on a standardized test. You show an amazing amount of arrogance with the statments above.

Intelligence is secondary to work ethic, kindness, and compansion. There are far too many people in the world who believe they are "better" than others and have a right to tell them what to do and how to live their lives. It's those that believe they "know better" that are the most dangerous.

I actually believe we are in such "deep doodoos" because we had those incredibly smart people in finance and banking that were arrogant enough to believe they could design and control a system that could counteract natural human behavior. I don't believe it's the those with "insufficient IQ's" as you like like to refer to your fellow human beings that created FRB, CDS, MBS or are the politicians and top elected officials.

Just keeping a page count discussing, guns, wars(who fought better) and arrogance - along with the obligatory mention of religion. In a minute the discussion will digress to the length of their...

...List of degrees.

And yet, scant discussion about three nuclear reactors that have their fuel melted (or melting) through the containment with a forth reactor building about to dump tons of spent fuel rods out into the open when the building collapses - of course all of this is happening only yards from the Pacific ocean and within killing range of a city of millions. Not to mention the contamination from just those four plants that will certianlly have a profound global impact for decades to come.

Then there are the stories about companies that want to proceed with hydro-frac'ing that will permanently ruin drinking water supplies in the Northeast and other areas of the U.S. by needing to claim ever harder to reach energy to satisfy our "energy fix."

Or what about a discussion about whether-or-not Greece should go the way of Iceland and what that would mean to the economic life of Europe.

Perhaps those stories are just too dire to think about much less discuss. Perhaps it is because most know little about the topics to even attempt debate.

It seems though, that we have become armchair experts about firearms and who should be allowed to - carry/own/use them. I have my own opinions about them - but why would you care?

Almost seven pages of discussion about one story from the Daily Digest.

And yet, scant discussion about three nuclear reactors that have their fuel melted (or melting) through the containment with a forth reactor building about to dump tons of spent fuel rods out into the open when the building collapses - of course all of this is happening only yards from the Pacific ocean and within killing range of a city of millions. Not to mention the contamination from just those four plants that will certianlly have a profound global impact for decades to come.

<snip>

Perhaps those stories are just too dire to think about much less discuss. Perhaps it is because most know little about the topics to even attempt debate.

It seems though, that we have become armchair experts about firearms and who should be allowed to - carry/own/use them. I have my own opinions about them - but why would you care?

Almost seven pages of discussion about one story from the Daily Digest.

Interesting.

C.

Carl - your assessment of conditions at Fukushima, while dramatic, are incorrect. By a long shot.

I was not aware there was a quota on what could or should be discussed from the DD?

I thought I would. Get a response about my Fukishima comment from you. My comment about "killing range" is dramatic and not quite accurate if one looks at it from a military "boom! You're dead" definition, but I think long term cancer death rates will tell the tale.

As far as "meltdown" I defer to the expert: http://fairewinds.com/content/shining-light-triple-meltdown-fukushima-daiichi

My comments about the spent fuel rods pools are inaccurate as well. Building four is already "open to air" and I am not sure if the pools are capable of holding much water... The building may already be beyond salvage. And aren't the buildings within a few hundred yards from the ocean? Lastly, can we really deny that there will be decades of impact from this disaster globally?

As far as discussion about the number of topics discussed, I really find it odd that the deepest and most passionate discussion almost always surrounds guns.

I like guns, I own "a few" - I do mind when the gooberment tries to take any of my (or your) liberty.

I agree that a large number of gun toting Americans don't have the mindset to use the weapon in an asocial "event" -that said, I think for that reason, a lot of law enforcement officials only see those citizens as providing "another" firearm to the "bad guys"

But - it's not their call to tell us that we can't have firearms.

To be "American" (lower 48 American) is a unique experience that others around the world have a hard time understanding.

What I really want to talk about is chillies!

Dogs_In_A_Pile wrote:

RNcarl wrote:

And yet, scant discussion about three nuclear reactors that have their fuel melted (or melting) through the containment with a forth reactor building about to dump tons of spent fuel rods out into the open when the building collapses - of course all of this is happening only yards from the Pacific ocean and within killing range of a city of millions. Not to mention the contamination from just those four plants that will certianlly have a profound global impact for decades to come.

<snip>

Perhaps those stories are just too dire to think about much less discuss. Perhaps it is because most know little about the topics to even attempt debate.

It seems though, that we have become armchair experts about firearms and who should be allowed to - carry/own/use them. I have my own opinions about them - but why would you care?

Almost seven pages of discussion about one story from the Daily Digest.

Interesting.

C.

Carl - your assessment of conditions at Fukushima, while dramatic, are incorrect. By a long shot.

I was not aware there was a quota on what could or should be discussed from the DD?

I thought I would. Get a response about my Fukishima comment from you. My comment about "killing range" is dramatic and not quite accurate if one looks at it from a military "boom! You're dead" definition, but I think long term cancer death rates will tell the tale.

As far as "meltdown" I defer to the expert: http://fairewinds.com/content/shining-light-triple-meltdown-fukushima-daiichi

My comments about the spent fuel rods pools are inaccurate as well. Building four is already "open to air" and I am not sure if the pools are capable of holding much water... The building may already be beyond salvage. And aren't the buildings within a few hundred yards from the ocean? Lastly, can we really deny that there will be decades of impact from this disaster globally?

As far as discussion about the number of topics discussed, I really find it odd that the deepest and most passionate discussion almost always surrounds guns.

I like guns, I own "a few" - I do mind when the gooberment tries to take any of my (or your) liberty.

I agree that a large number of gun toting Americans don't have the mindset to use the weapon in an asocial "event" -that said, I think for that reason, a lot of law enforcement officials only see those citizens as providing "another" firearm to the "bad guys"

But - it's not their call to tell us that we can't have firearms.

To be "American" (lower 48 American) is a unique experience that others around the world have a hard time understanding.

What I really want to talk about is chillies!

C -

I would look somewhere else than fairewinds for accurate and objective information on Fukushima. Gunderson went over the edge with some of his "dire predictions" that just weren't credible, likely or realistic. He jumped the shark on outlining the worst case scenario and presented it as imminent rather than remotely possible. I think he discredited himself quite a bit and while I was an early supporter of his objective discussions, he seemed to get a little shrill for me once the traffic to fairewinds.com picked up. I rarely go to his site anymore except to get a pulse on the hysterics.

It is my understanding that the spent rods from Unit #4 have been/are being removed as transient radiation/contamination levels allow access. Besides, as long as the fuel cell assembly is intact, there's not as much to worry about.

I don't think any of the buildings are salvageable in terms of restoration to operations, but eventually they will be put in as safe a condition as possible. I doubt the area on -site will ever be habitable in the long term - much like the immediate vicinity of Chernobyl.

As far as a global impact - that depends. As we all saw, radioactive contamination escaped into the atmosphere and was detectable in various places around the globe. But just like Chernobyl, the levels, while detectable, were relatively low and the accident conditions that were generating atmospheric releases on the scale we initially saw no longer exist. As I said in an earlier response to thatchmo, this is now a localized event, it is a significant one and it will be for decades. I don't think that the areas withn 10-12 miles from the accident will be habitable anytime soon. What will be needed is accurate, thorough and transparent surveys to determine the extent of the dispersion. Some "credible sources" are claiming a homogeneous distribution of radioactive contamination and that just wasn't the case.

So yeah, it will be felt globally, but for reasons other than what the Japanese residents of the Fukushima Prefecture are primarily worried about.

Color me guilty about fanning the gun discussion fire. You and I think alike - what I don't get is why those who think differently would choose to engage in a debate where neither side will yield.

Chilis?????? Now yer talkin'. I am jazzed about this pepper season - I have successfully germinated ghost peppers and Trinidad Scorpion Tails from last year's harvest. I only got one good pepper from each plant, but I harvested the seeds and so far so good. My ghost pepper seedlings are about 2 inches high, sturdy and healthy, and are being repotted this week. I am patiently awaiting the germination of my balloon peppers (wonderfully described as "excruciatingly hot") We can take the chili conversation to the Permaculture thread as soon as you want and stick a fork in this DD dead horse......

It is my understanding that the spent rods from Unit #4 have been/are being removed as transient radiation/contamination levels allow access. Besides, as long as the fuel cell assembly is intact, there's not as much to worry about.

What would be your assessement after a magnitude 8 earthquake? That's the kind of thing I would like to know